I don't normally review essays, but I thought this particular one was very insightful and still holds true today. I realized towards the end that this post had become an opinion piece rather than a book review, but I feel I needed to get these thoughts off my shoulders. "Politics and the English Language", by George Orwell, was written in 1946. It addresses the topic of modern English, especially how it has corrupted our country. The gist is this: Orwell believes that writing, especially political writing, has evolved to include "ready-made phrases," usage of typical metaphors, a lack of brevity, and a need for sounding presentable. He expands, giving examples of carefully phrased political statements that shroud the truth (for example, a genocide) with a multitude of metaphors and professional sounding language intended to thoroughly obfuscate the reader into trivializing the matter at hand. Orwell proceeds to list his guidelines for better English, and concludes the essay. However, it brings a lot to light for me especially, as I am guilty of an extremely formal writing style.
The main reason as to why my writing style is as such, is due to my education system. Starting from the elementary level of education, children are encouraged to use big words and compound and complex sentences. Run-on sentences are frowned upon, but brevity is not welcomed. English at the high school level gears one towards the use of metaphors, formal structure, complex vocabulary, and hundreds of rhetorical strategies, all of which are known to be helpful on the SAT and other important standardized tests. I followed that very path, and needless to say, I'm not unhappy with my writing style, but only rather curious as to how it would have evolved following Orwell's guidelines.
Another point to bring up is the American election of 2016. I shall do my best to remain unbiased here. Two characters, with totally different English. On one hand, you have a man who speaks quite crass, oftentimes using made-up words. However, he is straight to the point and brief. On the other hand, you have an experienced politician who speaks eloquently, polished, and formally, much fitting Orwell's description of bad political language. I do not think that English was the main reason that Clinton lost, but I do think that language is a factor. Orwell wrote that "language corrupts thought," which is why it is a necessity to maintain good English. To me, it is clear that the language of the two candidates did play a role in what the public opined, although the results are still shocking.
Thus, considering present day modern English and its effects, it may not be terrible to take a page out of Orwell's book and maybe cut back on English that is flamboyant...or should I say showy?
